Originally posted by seba"Stacy made the right decision to not pose in Playboy"Whats wrong with you guys?.."She did the right thing"..you all sound so...gay. We're talking about Stacy Keibler. Why would anybody not want to see her naked?

And someone said theres nothing special about her. Look at her ass. Look at her legs. Look at her whole body. That's nothing special?

And too small-breasted for Playboy?..Her boobs are perfect to her body. At least almost perfect..

(edited by seba on 11.12.03 1357)

They mean Stacy probably made the right decision for HER career....would we all like to see her naked? I'd like to think so. It's not like we'd boycott the issue if it came out.

Originally posted by seba"Stacy made the right decision to not pose in Playboy"Whats wrong with you guys?.."She did the right thing"..you all sound so...gay. We're talking about Stacy Keibler. Why would anybody not want to see her naked?

And someone said theres nothing special about her. Look at her ass. Look at her legs. Look at her whole body. That's nothing special?

And too small-breasted for Playboy?..Her boobs are perfect to her body. At least almost perfect..

(edited by seba on 11.12.03 1357)

YOU sound like someone who's insecure over somebody not sharing your tastes in chicks. I'll never understand guys like this.

Originally posted by Excalibur05It's pretty well known that Playboy has a standing policy against tattoos for its girls. The only exceptions have come when it's been small (which this is not), it's out of the way and easy to shoot around or airbrush out (which this is not), or when the person's celebrity is high enough for them to ignore it (which is iffy in this case).

WHy then is the 50th anniversery playmate showing her tattoos on both legs? I dont think they are AGAINST tattoos, I think there is just not enough "Playboy quality" women who actually have tattoos.

Originally posted by StaggerLeeWHy then is the 50th anniversery playmate showing her tattoos on both legs? I dont think they are AGAINST tattoos, I think there is just not enough "Playboy quality" women who actually have tattoos.

Eh, maybe that's it, or maybe their policy has changed now that Hef's not running the whole show anymore. I know that they have a history of shooting around them and that some girls have been asked to try to cover them up when they come in for auditions. I believe Howard Stern when he does his Playboy scouting shows tells girls who have tattoos that Playboy won't be very interested. Again, maybe they're changing their philosophy.

Wisconsin Badgers: 7-5 (Looks like we're playing Auburn. That's a color, not a school.)

Minnesota Vikings: 8-5 (I'm extending my giving thanks for one more week to say "Thank you, Seattle, for being an awful road team.")

Originally posted by seba"Stacy made the right decision to not pose in Playboy"Whats wrong with you guys?.."She did the right thing"..you all sound so...gay. We're talking about Stacy Keibler. Why would anybody not want to see her naked?

And someone said theres nothing special about her. Look at her ass. Look at her legs. Look at her whole body. That's nothing special?

And too small-breasted for Playboy?..Her boobs are perfect to her body. At least almost perfect..

(edited by seba on 11.12.03 1357)

Thank God there's at least one homosexual male on this board. I can't believe anybody would NOT want to see Stacy naked. Why the heck do you guys care about her career? Are you her agent or something?

Originally posted by Tribal ProphetI mean, it's not like we're trying to shoot around tatoos to get nude shots of The Undertaker.

Now, let's all destoy the mental thought I have just implanted.

Tribal Prophet

Oh, man, little do you suspect how assiduously some of us cultivate those thoughts. But I'll only put in a link rather than post it out in the open--I don't want to be accused of striking anyone blind. Beware, susceptible males!

Edit: further warning--do not open at work or while your mother-in-law is in the room.

Originally posted by StephanieP.S. Madame Manga, that sketch is just...disturbing. Do we know for sure that Taker is circumcised?

You're asking ME? I assure you I have not the slightest idea.

Oh, and Seba, "quality" is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us, no matter what our orientation, think that Stacy needs a sandwich. (But no implants, please. There's nothing worse than skinny girls with basketball chests--they offend my sense of proportion.)

Originally posted by sebaWe're talking about Stacy Keibler. Why would anybody not want to see her naked?

Um...because some of us see that type of thing every day in the mirror?

Steph

and your things got the same quality as stacys?..then you've really got reasons to smile.

(edited by seba on 13.12.03 0407)

If you ever wonder why your instant rating is what it is, just reread your posts on SD:HCTP and now in this thread. Could you show any civility at all?

Most of the people not wanting Stacy in Playboy either want a different WWE Diva in there first, or do not think that Stacy should do this in this stage of her professional career. We don't have to be her agent to see what could happen to her after such a decision. Get over yourself and move on, please.

Damn you WWE for making me change my sig. I'm sure you have good enough reasons to get rid of Shannon, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Let me thus be the first to say: BRING BACK DAFFNEY!

Originally posted by Tribal ProphetI mean, it's not like we're trying to shoot around tatoos to get nude shots of The Undertaker.

Now, let's all destoy the mental thought I have just implanted.

Tribal Prophet

Oh, man, little do you suspect how assiduously some of us cultivate those thoughts. But I'll only put in a link rather than post it out in the open--I don't want to be accused of striking anyone blind. Beware, susceptible males!

Edit: further warning--do not open at work or while your mother-in-law is in the room.

Even if you were going to put Taker's head on the body, the least you could have done is mention that my body was the model for that sketch. Though I must admit, you've made some part smaller than they actually are.

What do you call Albert Einstein beatin' off?Give up?A stroke of genius!

Originally posted by LexusLita has a higher probability (I'm not sure how much higher), and I'm actually very curious to see how many people would buy into seeing Stephanie naked. Remember, everybody popped like crazy when she teased it would be her in the magazine.

I think a Stephanie issue would be the biggest seller of any of the girls. And it's not necessary that she's better looking then the other girls(she's alright, not in my top 5 but I could see how some like her) but I think it will sell big time because of the McMahon name. Wrestling fans and non-wrestling fans would be interested what Vince McMahon's little girl looks like... Not so long ago I would think Vince would say no to it, but after a while I figured Vince just doesn't care. No HHHubby might be a different story, I don't think he wants the unwashed smarks to see Stephy in the buff.

PS Good Gawd Magna, that sketch is going to leave a permanent mark on my subconscious. Instead of dreaming of sugar-plums dancing in my heads for this time of year, I got I feeling it's going to be that LoL... Gotta go search some of my personal fav WWE photos (non-Undertaker of course) hopefully I'll be okay. Usual suspects, Garcia, Stratus, Dupree. Hey what are you looking about his France Prance makes me smile

Christmas is the one time of year when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ. - Bart Simpson

I'm trying to think back over the past few years, but I can't remember a woman with enormous, over-inflated, giant fake boobies like Steph has in Playboy. Sure, there are plenty of enhanced ones in there, but not Goodyear-blimp, aging-pornstar-at-the-end-of-her-career, ridiculous like monster-truck-tires-on-a-Ford-Focus funbags.

On the other hand, if they ever went ahead and did a "Girls of the WWE" issue, Stacy would be the one I'd most want to see out of the group.

“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim

Originally posted by JayJayDeanI'm trying to think back over the past few years, but I can't remember a woman with enormous, over-inflated, giant fake boobies like Steph has in Playboy. Sure, there are plenty of enhanced ones in there, but not Goodyear-blimp, aging-pornstar-at-the-end-of-her-career, ridiculous like monster-truck-tires-on-a-Ford-Focus funbags.

On the other hand, if they ever went ahead and did a "Girls of the WWE" issue, Stacy would be the one I'd most want to see out of the group.

Actually, if you were to put Steph up close next to many of the typical "Playmate" girls I'd guess she wouldn't look too out of place, bust-wise. She looks huge compared to the WWE Divas (except for Sable, who might've had a reduction since her last run) and "normal" women, but she's hardly in the pornstar "smuggling a volleyball" category... now, give it a few years and she might, if her hubby decides he likes 'em even bigger (and if she gets insecure about aging and wants to keep his attention...)

Originally posted by SOKAs a man who's always had an eye for plus sized women, I think Stacey's nothing special.

I hear that. I too love plus-size ladies. And Stacy looks like a toothpick to me. Would I like to see her naked? Yeah.

But in the past, WWF/E Divas doing playboy has marked carrer suicide. Sable and Chyna bothe left WWE/F shortly after their first shoot, and the second shoot didn't sell as well as the first becasue of that.

As for Torrie's issue, it seems she is content in being just eye-candy and knows where her bread is buttered. I guess.

But there are a few divas I'd like to see pose nude before Stacy. Trish, Lita, Victoria, and Molly(even though it'll never happen) come to mind.